AG: Maldives won; ITLOS’ decision cannot be appealed

Attorney General Ibrahim Riffath. (Sun Photo/Muzayyin Nazim)

The decision by the International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to award the larger area of the maritime territory disputed by Maldives and Mauritius cannot be appealed, states Attorney General Ibrahim Riffath.

Opposition parties, unhappy over ITLOS’ decision in the division of the disputed maritime territory, filed a no-confidence motion against Riffath on Thursday.

Riffath said that according to Article 296 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), decisions by tribunals formed under the convention are final, and must be accepted.

“The countries involved are compelled to obey the decision. The decision cannot be appealed,” he said.

Maldives was awarded 47,232 square kilometers of the disputed area, while Mauritius was awarded 45,331 square kilometers. ITLOS sided with Maldives in its argument that the basepoint cannot be calculated from the Blenheim Reef.

Riffath said Maldives had advocated for the larger piece of the disputed area. However, the opposition Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Jumhoory Party (JP), Maldives National Party (MNP), and parliamentarians who support Speaker Mohamed Nasheed’s Fikuregge Dhirun faction have accused the government of failure to act in the best interests of Maldives, and have filed a no-confidence motion against Riffath.

PPM, JP, MNP and Fikuregge Dhirun faction hold a joint press conference. (Photo/PPM)

Parliamentary regulations require the signatures of minimum 10 parliamentarians to submit a no-confidence motion against a government minister. Passing the motion required the vote of half of the parliamentarians. The opposition therefore needs the vote of 43 out of 87 parliamentarians.

The Fikuregge Dhirun faction has 12 parliamentarians, the PPM-PNC coalition has seven, JP has three, and MNP has three.

Though the Maldivian people had previously used the 95,563 square kilometers of disputed maritime area between Maldives and Mauritius, Maldives did not have any jurisdiction in the area. The area had not been delimited.

The opposition argues Maldives should have gotten the entire area.